Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday September 26, 2011 @07:35PM
from the be-careful-they-know-your-tire-pressure dept.

coondoggie writes "U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission to get the agency to investigate recent changes navigation and emergency services company OnStar made to its privacy practices. Schumer said, 'By tracking drivers even after they’ve cancelled their service, OnStar is attempting one of the most brazen invasions of privacy in recent memory. I urge OnStar to abandon this policy and for FTC to immediately launch a full investigation to determine whether the company’s actions constitute an unfair trade practice.'"

He'll take a nice long vacation in the Bahamas with his secretary and never press the issue again.

You accuse someone you most likely know little about of committing future crimes and cheating on his wife of 30 years with no evidence whatsoever. If you would not want the government to do the same to you, maybe you could find it in your character to walk back those accusations.

If you would not want the government to do the same to you, maybe you could find it in your character to walk back those accusations.

Yeah, because if the time ever comes when members of the government might want to publicly smear a private citizen they will certain back off once they check his record and see that he's always been extremely respectful of those elected to office.

You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

So, how do you reconcile your response with the ages-old Q/A, "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" "His lips are moving." ???

I think they nailed it perfectly in The Hunt For Red October: "I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when i'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops" pretty much sums it up. Smile pretty for the camera while backstabbing and cashing big fat checks off screen.

Citizens United only gave them the ability to take the bribes right out in the open with zero risk, which is probably advantageous what with a member of SCOTUS is looking a little shady [huffingtonpost.com] when it comes to business dealings

You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

When the senator voluntarily joined a group with a long and storied history of abusing the golden rule not only did he invalidate any claim to it, he practically asked to end up on the wrong end of it.

In particular, his past issues [weeklystandard.com] regarding personal privacy of political opponents suggests the criticism is not baseless. You may not like the hyperbole used to express that skepticism, but that's your problem. A pol who would take that personally would be to thin skinned to ever get elected in the first place.

As a scientist, I try not to make judgements except as indicated by evidence.

However, human beings have evolved to notice patterns and make inferences.

It doesn't matter whether a pattern holds true in all cases, it only matters whether it's more *likely* to be true as it influences my next decision.

Thus it may not be true that all crows are black, but this is not the important point. What matters is whether the *next* crow I see will be black, given all the crows that I have seen so far. I'll take that bet, because the likelihood is there.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether an average politician being motivated by their own interests is the better bet.

(Hint: set it up as a game-theoretic problem, given that almost all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money [which is empirically true]. Alternately, look at the voting history of the politician in question and see if you can determine the % which were in the public interest.)

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether an average politician being motivated by their own interests is the better bet.

It's possible to be skeptical of a politician's motive without accusing him of crimes and infidelity to his wife. If you want patterns, the story of politicians reflects the general population: the majority are law abiding and faithful to their spouses. Neither patterns or evidence support the (tongue in cheek) claims of the original poster.

What motivates me in this thread is avoiding the destructive, lazy and incorrect "government is populated exclusively by immoral criminal scum" cop out. It fixes nothing

Assertion 1: Elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money

I can't prove this logically, only empirically. A PEW study of large number of elections found that over 90% were won by the candidate who spent the most money. Of the remaining 10%, the majority self-destructed by political scandal. The general rule holds very well: the candidate who spends the most money (and doesn't get caught in a scandal) will win the election. Lots of corroboration on the net, such as:

While pattern recognition is important it also useful to know patterns are not a rule. Is there a face on Mars? Does my toast/potato chip look like a saint/president?. The real questions is 'Do you support this action or not?'

However, human beings have evolved to notice patterns and make inferences.

It doesn't matter whether a pattern holds true in all cases, it only matters whether it's more *likely* to be true as it influences my next decision.

Hence, stereotypes....and why, despite many people hating them or disputing them....simply need to face the facts that many if not most of them are based somewhat in fact. They didn't come from no-where....

Schumer is one of the few good senators who regularly goes after corporations when they abuse us lower lifeforms. Not that I think he's necessarily more moral than his colleagues, he's just in a position where it's easy for him to act on that sense of morality. When you routinely win your elections by 30+ point margins, you don't need to worry so much about pissing off potential corporate donors.

And amusing to see him trying to scuttle what is likely the sole thing Government Motors is doing that is profitable. Throw in the UAW getting a big fat handout and CAFE standards, and Bailout 2.0 can't be far away.

He is stating that the reasons that are motivating the removal are illegal (i.e. drug/people trafficking, black market weapons trade.. etc.). He is not stating that removing the device or wanting to remove the device is illegal.

I know it has been said over, and over, and over again. For whatever reason (actually, I know the reason), people seem to think that anyone that asserts their rights must be on the shady side of the law. If you had any idea how hard the men and women of the U.S. had to fight for the rights you are pissing all over, you'd smarten the fuck up.

You have no clue. Let's say I'm part of that database, and I'm a political opponent. Now, anywhere I go will be suspect. Anyone in proximity will be suspect. You

The removal is not unlawful, the reason (that I'm in possession of stolen property) is. Plain English. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you should have picked someone who was actually failing to make that distinction.

WRONG! GP completely failed. Holy fuck, you and every other goddamn anti-privacy/rights mouthpiece on this board is WRONG!

The REASON for removing the tracking system is "I DON'T WANT TO BE TRACKED". Your "reason" is irrelevant. Until you get that through your well insulated concrete filled skull, you'll lay on your stomach with your ass in the air waiting for the long pole of the law to slide its barbed truncheon in nice and slow while you beg for more.

So you can sell my what? Car? No way are you going to sell a stolen car. And if you would try, both you and the buyer and asking for whatever you get. And yes, crack is a wise investment. Actually, can I buy some stock in that from you?

Stolen car isn't the reason, "I don't want to be tracked" is still the reason. "I stole a car" made you not want to be tracked, but that is the same under the law as "I don't want to be part of a database". God, doesn't anyone understand logic around here?

Right and for better or for worse, those are non-voting shares so the US Government has about as much say in what goes on at GM as I do as a random member of the public. I take it you don't recall the uproar when it was suggested that some of the corporations getting bailed out should be required to fire their executives as a condition of acceptance.

Right and for better or for worse, those are non-voting shares so the US Government has about as much say in what goes on at GM as I do as a random member of the public. I take it you don't recall the uproar when it was suggested that some of the corporations getting bailed out should be required to fire their executives as a condition of acceptance.

I have two words Chevy Volt. GM execs knew it would flop mostly because electric cars are n+1 cars yet their decision to produce it was influenced by an outside source.

Not only OnStar turns on the onboard Microphone without your knowledge for months at a time so that the FBI can listen in, but it also disables its emergency channel so that no one answers your call for help and no one comes to your rescue when the FBI is listening in (or is recording) in your car.

Thankfully, they lost a big civil lawsuit over this.

This is the main reason the cars with old OnStar technology (with only one channel of communication instead of two) can stil

Because two North American governments are major share holders [wikipedia.org] of this company, I am sure that tracking operations will immediately cease, because we all know governments hate doing shit like that.

On the other hand maybe they can sell the data to the GPS companies and we can finally get some updated maps. There are roads around my area that had major routing changes three years ago that are still wrong on my Garmin.

I literally live a block away from Garmin's headquarters and I can see their building from my front yard. The intersection in the opposite direction doesn't show up as well as many of the residential roads in the area. And, these were all built 25 years ago. Garmin licenses that information from a 3rd party from what I understand.

I have never understood this given that the federal TIGER and a number of state data sets are free for any and all to use. The federal one seems to be about 10 years out of date but the state ones are updated more frequently. I have gone all over Minnesota with maps I made from the data provided by MNDOT and the MN DNR and they have been wonderfully accurate and include very minor roads and other features, but yet the map set that came with my new handheld GPS is missing streets in my neighborhood (it was a

This is the main reason I like Telenav / Sprint Navigation on my cell phone. The maps are periodically updated, and I don't have to get a windows computer, a cable that didn't come with the unit, and a yearly upgrade that costs 3/4 of the price of just buying a new unit to begin with. A Garmin recalculates a little faster, but my phone's not brand new and I don't make that many wrong turns anyway.:)

You can use the OpenStreetMap data on your garmin, which are quite up-to-date (e.g. the road that was moved and upgraded to four lanes in my neighbourhood showed up about the time of the opening in OSM).

If you cancel a service, they have zero rights to any information about you.

On-star has no more rights to the location of ex-customers than Texaco does.

Citizens should not be required to rip out the electronics to prevent a previous business partner from illegally spying on them.

In fact a good case can be made to legally require all corporations you cease doing business with to destroy all OLD records about you, with exceptions for records of transactions you engaged in. (see my blog entree from June [blogspot.com] for more information

I own a 2003 GM vehicle and I know f that the previous owner upgraded the OnStar system when they changed over from analog to digital. I've often wondered about how this works and if they can still track the car. Even knowing they are, I'm not sure I really care. I guess on a theoretical level it's annoying, But I have too many other things to worry about to get worked up over this. Actually, I've wondered if there is some kind of liability for them if they are still tracking my car w/o their service. If I

...Even knowing they are, I'm not sure I really care. I guess on a theoretical level it's annoying, But I have too many other things to worry about to get worked up over this....

Congratulations...you're apathy is deep enough to drown in. Not only that, but this is precisely why these companies a) do this, and b) get away with this.

While on one hand I totally agree with you, I also don't really want to live in a uni-bomber style shack/lifestyle. Frankly you are either too young/naive and are sponging off of your parents or are talking out of your ass. There is no way in hell you can be a productive well adjusted member of society (not that I'm sure this is that great of a thing, but I digress)and truly be fighting all of the injustices in the world. OnStar knowing exactly where I am in my car is an annoyance at best, but is still pret

I wish I could impart upon you the reality that exists beyond corporate sponsored media. "I want to enforce my right to privacy" does not equal "I am a terrorist" for god's sake! I am neither young or old. I am, also, far from the support of any other on this planet. Attempting to defame my character in an attempt to divert your argument proves your complete lack of intellectual articulation.

You don't even understand that your lack of attention to such things is by design. Consider that...and if you

No because1) Being stationary in a particular location for a long time doesn't always mean your vehicle is in trouble2) While they collect the information, they almost certainly don't monitor it in real time

Anyway, you may not care about OneStar having the information, but what if a burglar hacks into the system and uses the information to find people who are out of state.

but what if a burglar hacks into the system and uses the information to find people who are out of state.

Sounds like a lot of trouble when you could just have a peek through the letterbox to see how much post has built up, or just wander past the house in the evening a couple of times to see if any lights are on.

Nice service youse got there... It'd be a shame if anything bad should happen to it. It's a dangerous place, Detroit. Now, if I were you, and I'm just sayin' mind you, that a nice contribution to the folks that helped bail youse guys out might go a long way towards protectin' your service there.

And, don't think I'm showing bias or false equivalency because I'm picking on the Democrat here - the Republicans would do the same thing, but end up with twice as big a payoff, because they're "better" politicians.

The solution here is simple: Send OnStar a contract saying that you charge a fee of $10.00 per day for the information that they collect. Make the contract come into force after 30 days, if they do not respond to negotiate. Make sure the contract is sent registered mail to their registered agent in your state. Wait 30 days and send them a bill, again via registered mail. Wait a while longer and then file a claim in small claims court. I bet that would get their attention. My misses has OnStar on her car, which we do not use, so I will be doing this. Although IANAL, I am just a bastard!

You can't form a contract by simply sending someone a unilateral set of terms and relying on their silence to confirm their assent to it.

You can in some jurisdictions, but it does depend on the exact set of terms proposed. In particular, the person receiving the document can't be forced to take any action by such one-way contracts because they have not agreed to anything (so the contract terms would have to say "If you - the receiver - do A, then I will do B." so that the acceptance is still clearly signaled.) Remember, contracts are fundamentally agreements and you can't have an agreement without all parties actually agreeing.

It's a good idea but to send the bill you'd have to prove they gathered the information about you before you sent the bill. Unless you have access to the logs or can audit the hardware sufficiently to prove to six people (who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty) that OnStar tracked you, your lawsuit will fail.

I just shot an email over to Toyota, to see what, if any, policies they have in place similar to that of OnStar. Their service, Entune, is available in almost all of their vehicles, from Toyota to Lexus, so I figured it may be applicable/helpful.

Only a subset of them. I had a professor that argued that if we increase traffic (which hurts the environment) it will encourage more people to take public transport. So he's green by way of causing traffic jams. I tried to get him to explain when the payoff would come from making traffic worse and more people taking public transport, but he could never defend the idea any more than "It'll make them take public transport." I've been to southern CA, the traffic is bad, and public transport is still under

Yes, because one AC == The Left, roads are useful == roads are the best at everything, reducing car use == forcing people out of cars, Climate Change == scam for scientists to line their pocket with money.

Did I miss any wild exaggerations, strawmen and other fabrications that you managed to sneak in your single sentence?

Not really, we've been complaining about the over reliance upon cars. You do realize that buses and bikes can and are used on roads, right? And that it's mostly when people decide to live many miles away from their work and drive by themselves that we start having problem.

But, then again, I bet it's easier to just bash a fictitious view than to actually deal with reality. I'm sure that there are a few oddballs that believe it, but they're hardly the majority of liberals.

60K miles is low.:) Last time I bought a cop car, I got one with 154K miles - and the lowest at the auction was like 85K miles. But cop cars are awesome because of the scheduled maintenance; there's no way I'd get any other fleet car.

60K miles is low.:) Last time I bought a cop car, I got one with 154K miles - and the lowest at the auction was like 85K miles. But cop cars are awesome because of the scheduled maintenance; there's no way I'd get any other fleet car.

+1...acutally, +2 (I've owned 2 cop cars). Both purchased at 200,000km. Cop cars have so many important longevity upgrades (thick suspension, aircraft hoses (green!), and are very well maintained. I sent one to pasture at 320,000km due to nasty rust in the trunk, and a VERY intermittent brake issue (happened twice)...the other is still going strong at 313,000km...almost no rust...solid car. I will scour the earth for another once this one is done.

In terms of the Caprice 9C1 (since you mention the green silicone hoses), Goodyear makes a hose set for the essentially identical Impala SS under the name "Super Hi-Miler" which have a similar lifetime. The silicone hoses will last forever, but do not like any kind of contact with anything. The blue Goodyears will still outlast the car, but are more resistant to abrasion, and you can use regular hose clamps (but I still prefer to use the lined stainless clamps which don't cut into the hose).

I don't think the Goodyear hoses are the same quality...but I could be mistaken...I believe they are the infamous blue colour, right? Anyway, the green hoses have never caused me any issues, which is actually nice to experience considering that almost every consumer product is designed to fail. And about the clamps...yeah, they tend to make the hoses squish their their slits.

I'm not into Crown Vics at all, though I give them a bit of respect. It's too bad they rust so quickly...but I suppose it doesn't

find a fleet vehicle and it won't have OnStar installed, but at least in my case, all the other features you might want.

Like 60,000 miles driven by someone who knew it wasn't their car?

Hah...so true...but to tell you the truth, people aren't -that- reckless. As long as the maintenance is kept up-to-date, mid- and full-sized GMs usually last quite a while (I've owned 5, 3 of which easily went over 310,000km)

Is it? Did you check? It's pretty likely there is more than one antenna, or that as a fall back, the system uses the car's skin as an antenna. It's not like that would even be abnormal in the industry. I don't mean to sound paranoid, because that isn't the reasoning here. Crash / systems redundancy is where I'm coming from. Onstar is worth exactly nothing if it fails because the antenna was destroyed in the crash, and they sure as hell know it.